Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11820)	6/8/2000 8:30:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 13582

Maurice, I hope I never get used to your rants. If I do I fear I'll also enjoy them less. --Mike Buckley

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11820)	6/8/2000 10:39:00 AM
From: waverider	Respond to of 13582

Excellent. Like Richard Feynman interrupting an overly structured physics prof with his class slowly falling asleep. Me? I'm that smart a** kid in the corner who asks too many questions. <H>

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11820)	6/8/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 13582

I have seen 3 times in the past where people have taken large amounts of marketing FUD to try to unseat Q's investors. First was in 1991, when the TDMA camp was trying to get a vote for their standard and Irwin stands up and says "We should be that standard as we have the only field tested and commercially ready technology out there". We had just finished building commercial ASICS and were building the first prototype handsets. The TDMA camp had an emergency session which lasted 3 days and they mapped out one of the most frustrating campaigns in history against CDMA in terms of trying to gain support in the press. We all remember the Bill Frezza days. Perhaps a few of us remember the stock went from 16 (in those days, or in todays $'s from $1 down to $0.75...) down to 12. Second was the one waged in late 1998 by ERICY in the face of the openning of the China deals. It finally ended when the MII issued a statement that they would not be going GSM any more and that they would be going only CDMA. That ended ERICY's FUD and they signed with Q within 2 months. But remember the articles by highly informed individuals who were sure that "CDMA would not work, and violated the laws of Physics". Irwin is still CEO, but where is the guy who published that stuff? Again, stock went from $50 down to $37.50 ( or today $6.25 down to $4.50). Now we have the latest one going on in which everyone seems to be trying to outpublish the other in a race to pusblish the most abhorent FUD, with the noted exception, Qualcomm. They as always have taken the route of just going out, getting contracts and publishing the results. No hyperbole, no obtuse refernces to wordsmithing which gets it to look like some official said something they didn't, just performance. I would look alot harder to the underlying motives here rather than the day to day FUD which is published. Also, I would ask that you translate the Chinese articles that were posted today into english and read them. MII seems to be restating what it said in Dec 1998. No future in GSM in terms of meeting their future needs, CDMA is the only way to go in one form or another, and that they will buy 30-45 Mil handsets in 2000/2001. Place your bets on this horserace accordingly, but if the horse has already won all the races last year, why try to bet on the one which has repeatedly come in second?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11820)	6/8/2000 12:13:00 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Various responses. First to Maurice. With delight, I see we agree on a few things, like: 1. Pooling versus unilateral royalty math mechanics. 2. The GSM FUDmeisters have a far higher noise to signal ratio than the QCOM hypesters. (But while there's a lot of noise, there is still a signal in there with proper filtering.) 3. I sure hope the Musketeers turn on each other in various internecine squabbles. (But they did manage to sort things out in their GSM club, so don't bet money on hope.) 4. TDMA is a sorry standard. (But there are a bunch of users.) 5. The moon is NOT made out of green cheese. RfHombre: 1. If we SI posters could figure out the mean expectations in the stock we'd be a whole lot richer. As the Verve stated, this is a hard damn stock to understand, and most of the people here have made a great deal of effort to do so. Sounds from some of the feedback that maybe the more applicable moniker is "clueless investors." Carranza: 1. You forgot that QCOM also owns the bases and home plate. As long as the umpires do their jobs, we should be OK, even if we have to pay $5 each for a beer and a hot dog. Everybody coming into the park needs to buy a ticket (although it appears a few will try to sneak in without paying). General Comment: If through dint of superior technology, efficient system-wide costs of ownership, and time to market, 3G MC exceeds 30% worldwide market share, that would be incredible. I wouldn't buy or own the stock on that basis, other than looking at it as upside potential. Lastly, thanks to engineer for the historical perspective. As Yogi Berra used to say, it's really just deja vu, all over again.